Though we shall speak our minds plainly, we shall intend no disrespect to many in our country, who call themselves phrenologists. There are many who become such, rather as anatomists

locality, (p. 85.) in order to estimate the volume and relative force of organs. We admit, of course, that none but phrenologists are so endowed; but since Gall himself had neither form nor locality, (p. 362.) we can hardly believe that more than nine tenths are thus fortunate.

3. The chance that one who is to apply the doctrine understands it. In order to this, he must have all the 35 organs in good power; for it is a phrenological principle, as well as one of comnion-sense, that a good faculty is necessary well to apprehend the same. (p. 65, et passim.) Poor Spurzheim could not understand what Combe meant by concentrativeness, because it was so diminutive in his own head. (p. 138.) See also Spurzheim. The chance of having all the 35 faculties in good power, is almost infinitely less, as every one who knows the doctrine of chances will admit, than the chance of having three. But the phrenologists are wonderfully fortunate. Say, then, four to five.

4. The chance that being thus equipped, the disciple accurately measure the volume of any particular organ. This determines the power of it. And as every organ is an inverted one, (p. 84.) with the base outward, as a trifle only of variation in measuring the base of a cone, makes a great error in the solid contents; and as there is no line of boundary visible on the outside, or even defined, (p. 85.) it is certainly indulgent to say an even chance, one to two.

5. The chance that one organ has been so largely developed as to "encroach" on the proper province of its neighbor. (p. 87.) As we have no conceivable means of judging how often this happens, call it an even chance, one to two.

6. The chance, on the basis of the two just named, that all the organs be rightly measured, (as they must in order to correct "combination," which is the only basis of sound judgment.) is really but an infinitesimal, but call it one to ten. 7. The chance that there be no "frontal sinus,"-a large vacant space between the inner and outer bone of the forehead, which is not detected, (p. 77.) Say nine to ten.

8. The chance that "the fineness of texture” (p. 94.) in the brain be accurately judged, as it can be only guessed at. Call it one to two.

9. The chance that temperament be rightly judged, though obviously difficult, (pp. 29-31, and 93-4.) Call it nine to ten.

10. The chance that education may not have given a power to the character not indicated by the organs, (p. 94.) if there be any such chance at all, as education of some kind is universal, must be very small. Say one to ten.

11. The chance that the powers may have been directed to vice instead of virtue, by external causes; in which case the whole character, intellectual and moral, may be mistaken; (p. 94.) together with the chance that external stimulants may have served, in the place of a deficient temperament, (p. 97.) can be no better than even, one to two.

12. The chance that certain combinations of “ propensities" and "sentiments," favorable or not, to activity of some particular organ, be rightly estimated. (p. 97.) We will call it nine to ten.

13. The chance that a certain organ be "naturally more active than another, without reference to size," (p. 97.) if such a thing may be, cannot of course be determined, though said to be unfrequent; therefore we will call it an even chance, one to two.

14. The chance that the same be true of each of the organs singly, is 35 times more adverse to correct combination, that is, one to seventy, but call it

One to ten.

15. The volume, temperament, activity, education, etc., etc., of every and all organs being determined, to cast a correct result in any trait of character, on the principles of combination, would be no inconsiderable task, even if all the organs (which is impossible) were reduced in their power to determinate numbers. How much, for example, would a certain quantity of acquisitiveness affect a cer tain quantity of philoprogenitiveness? And as every faculty must have an effect upon every other, how much will all the other faculties, alimentiveness, destructive

than as moralists, and are properly to be regarded as men of sound sense. They have not been deeply conversant with moral subjects; and it is no imputation against their science to suppose, that if drawn off for a few years, to reflect upon themselves, and revolve the wonderful impulses of human liberty and religion, they would become satisfied of the utter insufficiency of phrenology, as now taught. There is much in man,-should we not rather say, that man himself is never perceived except by a kind of reflection, somewhat artificial or philosophic-a habit, or form, which is developed only by exercise in a particular direction.

We have been astonished at the facility of our countrymen, in the admiration they have bestowed upon the late Dr. Spurzheim'. It is our pride, that the stranger is so hospitably received on our shores; and if he come, as it were, a philosopher into exile, exploded by the contempt of philosophic opinion in his own country, it is still right, that we receive him with the charity due his unfortunate distinction. Nay, if it be the will of God, that be

ness, etc., etc., affect conscientiousness? Ordinary powers of judgment would despair in such a case, but phrenologists are more fortunate. Consider it an even chance then, one to two,

16. But character is not absolute, it is relative. It is necessary, therefore, not merely to measure every organ in combination with the others in the given head, but also to measure it in comparison with the same in heads in general; in which case the volume, or solid contents, temperament, texture, etc., of the same in heads generally, must be known. Here a field of mischances, numberless as the stars, is laid open. But say again, one to two.

17. Nor is it necessary only to know the volume, temperament, texture, etc., of the single organ itself generally, but it must be known in combination with all the other organs in each head; for that no organ is known till it is known in combination, is often repeated. The volume, temperament, texture, etc., of all the organs in heads generally, must therefore be known in their combined effects upon the single organs generally with which comparison is thus to be made, in order to adjust a character, or distinctive description of that element in a given person! Well! to save numbers, so unwieldy that we can never finish our reckoning, call the chance one to five.

18. Add to these the chance, (in common cases the least of all possible,) that the character, intellectually and morally, of the subject examined, be rightly estimated in particulars by himself and friends, and so that the result be justly tested, which we will call one to two.

We have, then, the following formula, as a measure of the worth of phrenologic judgments: xxxxxx~°~x+x+%×76x+x{\\\\'\\\\x{x}=

What an invaluable discovery must it be, that enables a practical and professed phrenologist to give a true character of the head once in 2,700,000 times! And what a noble basis on which to rest moral science, education, and the awful interests of religion! one chance in 2,700,000! We know very well, that they do judge cases more successfully than this would indicate; but it is by observing eyes, countenance, tone, air, etc., etc., and not by virtue of the "science."

Gall, we are told, had neither form nor locality,-faculties essential to this science. Spurzheim was grieved, that his loving disciple at Edinburgh should hint his lack of concentrativeness,-a faculty of fundamental importance in every spe cies of philosophy. Since they deal thus with each other, we venture to inquire, whether there may not be a fatal deficiency somewhere in the heads of the whole tribe?

be laid in our dust, let the spot where his infatuated industry rests, be marked by some appropriate monument. But why should the novelties and the coarse infidelity of one, whom the neol- . ogizing infidels of his own country discard as crude and visionary, be so hastily credited by us as profound discoveries? Does it regenerate folly, that it has come to our shores? Can we not,shall we not, some time or other, learn to distinguish, between opening our hearts and giving up our understandings? And why, especially, are christian ministers so ready to speak, even in their sermons, of the "great philosopher"? and why do they greet so complacently the itinerant pedlars of this mental quackery? Let them read, let them examine, weigh, and inwardly digest, the two volumes of their great philosopher, and they will find, that so far from being any philosopher, he is, in his feelings, a man of low vanity; that against religion he is swayed by the prejudices and retails the vulgar cant of the mob; that, if he has studied the brain with industry, and often observed individual facts with acuteness, his general deductions are a disorderly jumble, rather than a unique and digested system; and that, as far as mental analysis or resolution of psychological elements is concerned, (which in fact is, after all, the only ground on which his pretensions rest,) his work is more like the fuss of an alchemist, than it is like the sagacious and orderly process of philosophic research. No distinction is intelligently drawn, and of course, none is adhered to; every thing which is established is given up, and every thing but what is proved, established. For a very natural reason, he is ever looking for mind outwardly; and there is of necessity therefore no personal life, no strong unity of consciousness, in his doctrine of man. empties the skull; he turns over the brains; he talks about functions and organs, and the quarts there are of them; but of mind, as a living monad, he never thinks; he thinks of it rather as a mess. Is this a philosopher?-Call him rather an aruspex.

He

We make these remarks, partly with a view to admonish and check what we deem a hasty and dangerous tendency in the public, at this time, and partly to save ourselves the use of severer terms, concerning the author we have in hand. Nor will it by any means displease us, if some degree of factitious dignity, imparted by the association, shall bring him the more fitly within range of our criticism.

Dr. Brigham, the reader will at once perceive, is an implicit disciple of the great philosopher, and, like every such disciple, transcends all the follies of his master. With no title to discovery, he is yet the more pleased with his originality. He retails the opinions of his master more confidently without their reasons than he did with them. And the certainty which his chief felt, for the most part, in mental science, when the doctrine is possible, he

feels in religion, where it is absurd. Yet his book is better fitted, we suspect, to make converts among a certain class, than the works of Spurzheim himself; it is so by reason of its very faults. While it will do much, as we have anticipated, to open the eyes of christians and of all sober and judicious persons, and so at length to establish right opinions; we fear it will at first delude too many of the young and giddy, and especially of that numerous class, who, to weakness and want of cultivation unite hostile and flagrant prejudices against every kind of religion which includes the necessity of virtue.

There is a kind of even, self-possessed malice in the book toward religion, which will please them. And, soberly, if there be any thing respectable in that which gives unity to a work, we ourselves think it the author's most manly principle; for, intellectually, be has no one subject, and does not know himself, whether he is writing a theory of moral development, or a treatise upon bealth.

There is, too, a vein of self-confidence, or rather impudence, in the book, that is very likely to impose upon the vulgar. We undertook to mark the sentences beginning,-"I am of opinion," "I judge," "I advise," and the like; but we soon found it a hopeless task. We must refer at once to the book itself, where they will be found as thick neighbors as our phrenologic bumps. The most difficult and disputed questions are often dispatched in this way with magisterial satisfaction. Always, where the author had not the sense to devise a reason, or was too ignorant to investigate farther, he says," I am of opinion," and that ends it. man who speaks with such authority, will surely be deemed a philosopher.

And if they should not make the discovery, it will not be amiss to receive a gentle intimation. "They [the preachers] seem not to observe," he says, "that the age demands explanation, not dogmatism; that christianity is very properly yielding to the spirit of the age, and has become philosophical. Heretofore, when the great mass of mankind received it and believed it without examination, then it was dogmatical, imperious, immutable; but now, like all other subjects, it is submitting itself, and must submit itself, to discussion, analysis and examination." (p. 325.) This, after the rigid and profound research of his scripture commentary on the sacraments, is magical indeed. How charming must it be to the unfortunate class we have named, to hear that christianity is yielding in its once immutable principles, and becoming philosophical; and withal, after such a sort of philosophy, in which any man who has the five senses may be as deep as the wisest.

Besides, the writer is a man of such age and experience, as must be respected. Hear how he speaks. "Innumerable facts, deVOL. VIII.

8

rived from many years [!] of careful observation and inquiry; very many physiological and psychological truths must be obliterated from my memory, [!!] before I can be denied the consciousness of having collected (though in a very imperfect manner) important and timely considerations for my countrymen." (p. 329.) Venerable man! they will say, and bless the wisdom of his gray hairs with solemn admiration. Indeed, one must be of a prodigious age, who has even begun to anticipate the time when his "consciousness" will be preserved only by his "memory," and especially his consciousness of having written a book, by his memory of "very many psychological truths."

Nor will it be vain that he has seen foreign countries. A chapter upon stiffness, or anchylosis of the joints, as seen in the shocking austerities of the east, he thus pointedly concludes: "When I was at Rome in 1829, I saw, near the Basilica of St. Giovanni, the Scala Santa or holy stairs; which at that time were covered with devotees of both sexes, slowly, and I thought painfully, ascending on their knees, occasionally kissing the steps and saying prayers. The stairs consist of twenty-eight steps, and are said to have once belonged to the palace of Pontius Pilate at Jerusalem." (p. 75.) By which it satisfactorily appears, that the venerable author has traveled too, even in his old age; though it is not so evident, what connection the fact has with anchylosis of the joints; unless, perhaps, that the stairs he saw once belonged to Pontius Pilate at Jerusalem. The fact, however, will have its weight.

An extraordinary vein of learning, too, is here opened. The influence of religion upon health was to be considered; but yet there was a vast deal of learning besides, which the veteran author knew of, (vid. Lempriere's Dictionary, Bryant's Mythology, Mosheim's History, &c.,) and which, as it had nothing to do with the subject, he determined to put into three or four introductory chapters by itself. These, having no intelligent object, will doubtless excite pure astonishment.

It

In fact, the book is too well fitted to impose upon the irreligious vulgar, just that class which the humane and good are careful to surround with safeguards and moral defenses, and that, whose applause, to a man of elevated feeling, would be ignominy itself. will drive from many such, we fear, the little remaining respect they feel for religion. It suits their taste, it flatters their wit, it arms them with excuses against their conscience, and what they will fancy wise reasonings against the gospel; and so it will make a prey,-alas! the prey is too easy,--of their defenseless souls.

In the mean time, the cultivated reader will see at once, in the air of industrious crudity, and the utter want of philosophic discrimination every where manifest, that the author does not know his facts; that he has digested nothing; and wears his learning less